telefonica_list_voice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('Lista registros de voz') without any information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), response format, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though it could benefit from being more informative given the lack of other documentation. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded with the main action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (beyond 'voice records'), doesn't address behavioral aspects, and provides no parameter guidance. Given the complexity and lack of supporting documentation, this description is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'src_id' or 'identificador' represent, nor does it mention the pagination parameters. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this fails to provide basic parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Lista' - list) and resource ('registros de voz de um arquivo da Telefonica' - voice records from a Telefonica file). It's specific about what's being listed (voice records) and from where (a Telefonica file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telefonica_list_messages' or 'telefonica_list_connections', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including other 'telefonica_list_' tools), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool from others that list different types of Telefonica data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.